The protestant Churches

[hedrick]

Taking the long way around the barn... to say what?

Forgive me...

To say that most Protestants on most issues agree well enough to permit the Holy Catholic Protestant Church (as one OE once mockingly called it) be viewed as a single communion, and thus a single Church with multiple branches, much like the Orthodox communion.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

To say that most Protestants on most issues agree well enough to permit the Holy Catholic Protestant Church (as one OE once mockingly called it) be viewed as a single communion, and thus a single Church with multiple branches, much like the Orthodox communion.

Oh... Sorry, I was trying to follow.

Lord have mercy!

Forgive me...

 

[Erose]

To say that most Protestants on most issues agree well enough to permit the Holy Catholic Protestant Church (as one OE once mockingly called it) be viewed as a single communion, and thus a single Church with multiple branches, much like the Orthodox communion.

Hebrick are you referring just to those churches that came directly from the original protestors or does this even include all churches and daughter churches of the original Protestant churches, such as the evangelical, fundamental, non-denominational, etc.?

In other words which churches are within your Holy Catholic Protestant Church in your opinion?

 

[Rick Otto]

There is liberty in Christ, just not enough to break either of the two greatest comandments.
May I ask what is the practical import of the question?

 

[hedrick]

Hebrick are you referring just to those churches that came directly from the original protestors or does this even include all churches and daughter churches of the original Protestant churches, such as the evangelical, fundamental, non-denominational, etc.?

In other words which churches are within your Holy Catholic Protestant Church in your opinion?

There's no question that Lutheran and Reformed are close together. However I'm referring to a wider group.

There have to be limits, or we include the JW's. But the churches from the Wesleyan, Baptist, and anaBaptist* tradition seem basically OK to me, as are at least some of those from the Restoration tradition (e.g., the Disciples -- I don't know the Church of Christ very well).

These days Protestants are coalescing around either the mainline, or evangelical theology, as represented by the NAE or equivalent. You can see this with the Pentecostals, who started seeing themselves as evangelical, and thus tend to fall in line with generic Protestant views except on their distinctives.

What I find is that most traditions have one or two key points that I may regard as weird, but have at least some Scriptural basis, even if I disagree. And the weirdness is no worse than people like Liquori in the Catholic Church. My sense is that the West has always had a wider spectrum than the East. However maybe it's just that I don't know the OE tradition as well. In the West they didn't call them denominations, but various orders often had fairly distinct theological emphases.

-------------

* The Baptists think they're the heirs to the 16th Cent Radical Reformation, but by and large they're a movement that came out of England, with a variant of Reformed theology. The real heirs of the Radical Reformation are groups like the Mennonites. I consider them an important part of the Protestant movement, because of their emphasis on peace and justice. While their web site claims that they are a "third way" between Catholic and Protestant, their statement of their distinctive beliefs on justification is right in the mainstream of Protestant thought.

 

[LinuxUser]

Luther to Zwingli.

<--Christ is present, physically and spiritually-------------to----------------Christ is not present at all - it's symbolic-->

Quite a polar opposite. And yes, it is quite a big deal. One is a sacrament, and the other is not.

Which one to believe. There is so much this and that to believe or not, someone told me being a Christian was easy. There is no way that is true

 

[Erose]

There's no question that Lutheran and Reformed are close together. However I'm referring to a wider group.

There have to be limits, or we include the JW's. But the churches from the Wesleyan, Baptist, and anaBaptist* tradition seem basically OK to me, as are at least some of those from the Restoration tradition (e.g., the Disciples -- I don't know the Church of Christ very well).

These days Protestants are coalescing around either the mainline, or evangelical theology, as represented by the NAE or equivalent. You can see this with the Pentecostals, who started seeing themselves as evangelical, and thus tend to fall in line with generic Protestant views except on their distinctives.

What I find is that most traditions have one or two key points that I may regard as weird, but have at least some Scriptural basis, even if I disagree. And the weirdness is no worse than people like Liquori in the Catholic Church. My sense is that the West has always had a wider spectrum than the East. However maybe it's just that I don't know the OE tradition as well. In the West they didn't call them denominations, but various orders often had fairly distinct theological emphases.

-------------

* The Baptists think they're the heirs to the 16th Cent Radical Reformation, but by and large they're a movement that came out of England, with a variant of Reformed theology. The real heirs of the Radical Reformation are groups like the Mennonites. I consider them an important part of the Protestant movement, because of their emphasis on peace and justice. While their web site claims that they are a "third way" between Catholic and Protestant, their statement of their distinctive beliefs on justification is right in the mainstream of Protestant thought.

Is there any serious movement of Ecumenicalism in the Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamental Churches at this time? We all know that the denominations that are offshoots of the original Protestant groups is still expanding, but is there any evidence of this expansion slowing down or stopping? Personally I would like to see the number P/E/F denominations start shrinking and condensing into a smaller number of denominations. I just don't think that overall Christian unity can occur without this happening first. Just my opinion though.

 

[mark46]

Among Protestant "denominations", there has been an effort toward unity of the past 50 years. I don't include those who are not associated with denominations. Almost by definition each of these local churches is its own denomination, although it may be more reasonable to consider them part of 3 or 4 grouping of evangelical churches. There are NOT thousands of denominations of evangelical "non-denominational" Christians. If they were considered in say four groupings, the diversity within would be no different than denominations such as Methodist, Anglican or even Roman Catholic.

This is the case in the US, Canada and Australia.

Within each denomination, there were many more sub-groups 50 years ago than there are now. For example, there has been consolidation within the Presbyterian groups in then US. There has been some actual "mergers" between denominational groups. In addition, there is an effor toward full communion between denominations, whereby the groups recognize each others pastors, priests, and "sacraments". The ELCA (LUtherans) have such agreements with 6 other denominations, including the UMC (Methodists) and the TEC (Anglican).

Is there any serious movement of Ecumenicalism in the Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamental Churches at this time? We all know that the denominations that are offshoots of the original Protestant groups is still expanding, but is there any evidence of this expansion slowing down or stopping? Personally I would like to see the number P/E/F denominations start shrinking and condensing into a smaller number of denominations. I just don't think that overall Christian unity can occur without this happening first. Just my opinion though.

 

[Aibrean]

LCMS Lutherans will not unify with non-Lutherans (or ELCA).

 

[hedrick]

Is there any serious movement of Ecumenicalism in the Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamental Churches at this time? We all know that the denominations that are offshoots of the original Protestant groups is still expanding, but is there any evidence of this expansion slowing down or stopping? Personally I would like to see the number P/E/F denominations start shrinking and condensing into a smaller number of denominations. I just don't think that overall Christian unity can occur without this happening first. Just my opinion though.

There are small efforts in this direction. The biggest Presbyterian churches merged a few decades ago. The most ambitious attempt was COCU. This was largely rejected by the memberships. What has replaced it is full communion agreements.

I think there's a difference between official and de facto ecclesiologies. Official ecclesiologies often see denominations as significant. But the de facto eccelsiology of most Protestants is that they want a church with the right programs that fits their general tendencies. In effect, most members don't care what denomination a church belongs to. To them, the local church is where the action is, and denominations are organizations to facilitate their mission. This approach is official among non-denominational churches, but I think aside from conservative confessional churches, it's de facto true everywhere.

That's why the multitude of denominations doesn't bother me. Denominations are certainly useful, both for coordinating things that take efforts beyond the local church, and for providing a structure for accountability, primarily for pastors. But there's no reason there can't be many such organizations. To me the primary things are congregations and the whole Church. Thus I see unity primarily as requiring individual Christians and congregations to recognize each other as colleagues in Christ, and I'd say as a sign of that, participating in the sacraments together.

I see no denominations in the NT, but I also don't see a Pope. Rather, we have individual congregations, some aligned loosely with different teachers, and some seeing Jerusalem and maybe a regional church as having some leadership. But it's a fluid thing, not a formal division into different denominations, and not a unified hierarchy. I believe that's the reality of Protestantism, while our theory still has remnants of the Catholic hierarc

I don't see any substantial movement towards organizational unification. Rather, I see non-denominational churches as a growth area, and denominations become more modest in their claims. With some exceptions, of course.

 

[sunlover1]

There is liberty in Christ, just not enough to break either of the two greatest comandments.
May I ask what is the practical import of the question?

Unity I hope

 

[bbbbbbb]

There are small efforts in this direction. The biggest Presbyterian churches merged a few decades ago. The most ambitious attempt was COCU. This was largely rejected by the memberships. What has replaced it is full communion agreements.

I think there's a difference between official and de facto ecclesiologies. Official ecclesiologies often see denominations as significant. But the de facto eccelsiology of most Protestants is that they want a church with the right programs that fits their general tendencies. In effect, most members don't care what denomination a church belongs to. To them, the local church is where the action is, and denominations are organizations to facilitate their mission. This approach is official among non-denominational churches, but I think aside from conservative confessional churches, it's de facto true everywhere.

That's why the multitude of denominations doesn't bother me. Denominations are certainly useful, both for coordinating things that take efforts beyond the local church, and for providing a structure for accountability, primarily for pastors. But there's no reason there can't be many such organizations. To me the primary things are congregations and the whole Church. Thus I see unity primarily as requiring individual Christians and congregations to recognize each other as colleagues in Christ, and I'd say as a sign of that, participating in the sacraments together.

I see no denominations in the NT, but I also don't see a Pope. Rather, we have individual congregations, some aligned loosely with different teachers, and some seeing Jerusalem and maybe a regional church as having some leadership. But it's a fluid thing, not a formal division into different denominations, and not a unified hierarchy. I believe that's the reality of Protestantism, while our theory still has remnants of the Catholic hierarc

I don't see any substantial movement towards organizational unification. Rather, I see non-denominational churches as a growth area, and denominations become more modest in their claims. With some exceptions, of course.

What I have been observing for a number of years from my limited vantage point is an amoebic type of growing unity in the face of increasing organiztional disunity. You cited the PCUSA as having united the two major Presbyterian denominations. Since that time the PCUSA has hemorrhaged over half of its members, reducing itself to a smaller size than either of its denominations prior to merger. Many of these members have not vaporized into nothingness or into non-church membership. They have, as individuals, or as entire churches moved into other fellowships. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church was spawned as a result and is rapid growing. The Presbyterian Church in America has also been growing at a fast clip. It came about prior to the merger as did the Orthodox Presbyterian Church which is more than holding its own. Within the PCUSA there are growing alliances of like-minded Presbyterians with mutterings of forming presbyteries not on geographical bases, but on theological commonalities.

In the face of such division there is a rapidly growing informal ecumenism as like-minded congregations are finding common cause on various issues across denominational barriers. These range from the most liberal to the most conservative beliefs. There seem to be two possible outcomes to this energy. One is to breed loose denominations without strong theological distinctives which divide them. The other will be to draw new denominational lines so that there will be a set of smaller old-line denominations and a set of new, evangelical denominations.

 

[hedrick]

In the face of such division there is a rapidly growing informal ecumenism as like-minded congregations are finding common cause on various issues across denominational barriers. These range from the most liberal to the most conservative beliefs. There seem to be two possible outcomes to this energy. One is to breed loose denominations without strong theological distinctives which divide them. The other will be to draw new denominational lines so that there will be a set of smaller old-line denominations and a set of new, evangelical denominations.

I mostly agree. I can see both looser denominations and realignment, not just in the PCUSA but more generally. However most of it seems to take the form of a weakening of denominations, with more functions being taken on by parachurch organizations, and affinity groups both within and across denominations. I don't see many denominations loosening on doctrine. It's just that many members don't care, and many people prefer to go to churches that aren't in that game in the first place.

The liberal churches may be an exception. Possibly we'll see different approaches in the conservative and liberal end. However liberal churches are also seeing functions move to parachurch organizations and affinity groups. I think most of us believe that the PCUSA will end up looking rather different in a few decades, with denominations focused on support services for congregational and regional missions.

But part of the realignment represents a change in what issues motivate people. In the 19th Cent arguments over free will are a big deal. Today most people know where they stand on that. The issues that are driving realignment now have to do with science and sexual ethics, and how we read and use Scripture. There were signs of these in the 16th Cent (e.g. in how they dealt with the new astronomy), but priorities have changed between traditional theological issues and these. At this point the PCUSA is closer to the Methodists than we are to more conservative Presbyterians.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

I mostly agree. I can see both looser denominations and realignment, not just in the PCUSA but more generally. However most of it seems to take the form of a weakening of denominations, with more functions being taken on by parachurch organizations, and affinity groups both within and across denominations. I don't see many denominations loosening on doctrine. It's just that many members don't care, and many people prefer to go to churches that aren't in that game in the first place.

The liberal churches may be an exception. Possibly we'll see different approaches in the conservative and liberal end. However liberal churches are also seeing functions move to parachurch organizations and affinity groups. I think most of us believe that the PCUSA will end up looking rather different in a few decades, with denominations focused on support services for congregational and regional missions.

But part of the realignment represents a change in what issues motivate people. In the 19th Cent arguments over free will are a big deal. Today most people know where they stand on that. The issues that are driving realignment now have to do with science and sexual ethics, and how we read and use Scripture. There were signs of these in the 16th Cent (e.g. in how they dealt with the new astronomy), but priorities have changed between traditional theological issues and these. At this point the PCUSA is closer to the Methodists than we are to more conservative Presbyterians.

For the most part I have to agree with you about the current state of, and future of, Protestant churches.

I am interested to see where the Methodists end up, they have a rather large presence in the South that has kept them from going the liberal route most mainline churches have taken. Just from talking to my Methodist family and attending various Methodist churches in OK I have found that most if not all Southern Methodists won't be willing to stay in the UMC if they go the way of the PCUSA, ELCA, or the Episcopal Church. So I'm wagering that if the UMC does go the way of other mainline churches that we'll see a big split in the UMC.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I mostly agree. I can see both looser denominations and realignment, not just in the PCUSA but more generally. However most of it seems to take the form of a weakening of denominations, with more functions being taken on by parachurch organizations, and affinity groups both within and across denominations. I don't see many denominations loosening on doctrine. It's just that many members don't care, and many people prefer to go to churches that aren't in that game in the first place.

The liberal churches may be an exception. Possibly we'll see different approaches in the conservative and liberal end. However liberal churches are also seeing functions move to parachurch organizations and affinity groups. I think most of us believe that the PCUSA will end up looking rather different in a few decades, with denominations focused on support services for congregational and regional missions.

But part of the realignment represents a change in what issues motivate people. In the 19th Cent arguments over free will are a big deal. Today most people know where they stand on that. The issues that are driving realignment now have to do with science and sexual ethics, and how we read and use Scripture. There were signs of these in the 16th Cent (e.g. in how they dealt with the new astronomy), but priorities have changed between traditional theological issues and these. At this point the PCUSA is closer to the Methodists than we are to more conservative Presbyterians.

I quite agree with your excellent post. Thanks!